grace blush pic updated

If we ever go back to /icup/ again, these anthems we'll use.

/monarchy/ is invited to the 3rd 8moe Duels Soulcalibur 6 tournie. You are welcome to add another character (if you want) or re-roll your character's fighting style fighting style. The event is being hosted at >>>/icup/5943 It will be sometime this upcoming weekend.

Esther and her best friends. Colour version HD coming soon...

Now, I promised: Esther and her best friends Avellana of /av/, Grace of /monarchy/ and Lila of /tkr/ Colour version and HD

Aristotle on a mixed or foreign racial underclass: >The very best thing of all would be that the husbandmen should be slaves taken from among men who are not all of the same race and not spirited, for if they have no spirit they will be better suited for their work, and there will be no danger of their making a revolution. The next best thing would be that they should be Perioeci of foreign race, and of a like inferior nature; some of them should be the slaves of individuals, and employed in the private estates of men of property, the remainder should be the property of the state and employed on the common land. I will hereafter explain what is the proper treatment of slaves, and why it is expedient that liberty should be always held out to them as the reward of their services. The love of multiculturalism in today's society is a love of cheap labor and making the next neocolonial hydra of global society. The West views China & Mexico & other industrial sectors like Aristotle's natural slaves. The desire to import more foreign peoples is to fulfill the mixture of the political constitution on these terms above. This runs deep even amongst White nationalists themselves (who detest Jews for the same reason, i.e. viewing everyone else as natural slaves) -- & think the menial work is prime and proper for brown hands. The problem is a mentality like this is why multiculturalism is embraced: it completes Aristotle's City. While North Korea might be seen as a bee colony of natural slaves, they have no impetuous to import foreign hands & have a community of pleasures and pains which race nationalists so badly desire.

Jean Bodin acknowledges a sovereign prince has the capacity to change the customs of a people (& I largely agree here). <Jean Bodin / The Sovereign has power over custom >For which cause Dion Chisostome compares the law to a tyrant, and custom to a king. Moreover the power of the law is much greater than the power of custom: for customs are by laws abolished, but not laws by customs. <Louis XIV's disdain for & roast of so-called "constitutional monarchy": >For there is no doubt that this subjection that makes it necessary for a sovereign to take orders from his people is the worst calamity that can befall a man of our rank. -Louis XIV Quote #1 >It is perverting the order of things to attribute decisions to the subjects and deference to the sovereign, and if I have described to you elsewhere the miserable condition of princes who commit their people and their dignity to the conduct of a prime minister, I have good cause to portray to you here the misery of those who are abandoned to the indiscretion of a popular assembly. -Louis XIV Quote #2 >I fail to see, therefore, my son, for what reason the kings of France, hereditary kings who can boast that there isn't either a better house, nor greater power, nor more absolute authority than theirs anywhere else in the world today, should rank below these elective princes. -Louis XIV Quote #3 >It is the essential fault of this monarchy that the Prince may not levy any extraordinary taxes without the Parliament nor keep the Parliament in session without gradually losing his authority, which is sometimes left shattered, as the example of the previous King [Charles I] had sufficiently demonstrated. -Louis XIV Quote #4

This should be helpful.

>>6741 >your IP is from a known spammer Well guess TOR not working.

Anyone noticed that Graceposter basically disappeared once King Charles took to the throne?

>>7856 Brutal, but fair, your grace.

>>7856 online leftists are the most boring type of people anyway, they also worship minorities like they aren't violent criminals

>>2728 Oi you got a loicense to talk shit?

>>2729 > yes, yes and yes

UK in pretty rough shape now. Shame.

>then as a catholic traditionalist, I will assert the idea of decentralization and one among equals for monarchy and the idea of a Europe of a Thousand Liechensteins <although I would NEVER peddle those same ideals for the Pope as one among equals among the bishops nor abide well with a thousand Protestant denominations being like a pagan pantheon in every country.

Just the tip of the iceberg of all the insanity surrounding constitutional monarchists.

It is like Sauron from Lord of the Rings. Having Monarchy is just bad because like Sauron and the One Ring. No one man should rule. Nobody should have power. Throw the ring into the fire, frodo.

If anyone should be Anarcho-Monarch, Pope Francis. The perfect Monarch is the Anarcho-Monarch who doesn't rule a State. Pope Francis doesn't rule a State. A Church is nothing like ruling a State & unlike a State it is fully consensual & voluntary from Church tithes up.

It is about sharing love and giving love freely instead of taking it. This scene 100% describes my new outlook on monarchy.

If the monarch has no majesty, but is simply a pawn or a fashion accessory for whatever denomination -- this won't do.

>>7860 An absolute monarch has way more incentive to care about public appearances than a purely figurehead monarch who has no stake whatsoever. This is more natural and comely to an actual ruler. >However, if the monarch attempts to advocate such ideas for the realm, these checks and balances must be activated. Is this about King Charles III? If there was ever an emblem of constitutional monarchy, this is as far as it gets & yet this is a problem. King Charles III is no atheist, but inspired by the traditionalist & perennial views (which attests in universalism of religions). So Charles III wanted to be Defender of the Faiths. >but understands the importance of religious institutions for the harmony of the realm I think you should follow a likewise example & understand the importance of monarchy to political society. What Christ does to the Church (i.e., gives a blood relationship, makes them a family), a Monarch does for political society (makes them one family). Monarchy, that is, the unifying leadership of one person, brings harmony. This is the strongest virtue political society can achieve for men, because they have the virtue of a family altogether, which means staying through good and bad times, which means not stabbing and betraying one another in factionalism, which means a blood bond to said monarch, like a child to his father, which should be revered as inseparable and a common source of unity in that society.

If your view of the monarch in monarchy (in general) is like gollum from Lord of the Rings, you're playing into disbelief (& not in a state of awe); people constantly keep this in mind, which makes for very bad monarchists for kings. ... I've always been of the opinion Communists make way better monarchists for their Leaders. They regard Lenin and Mao like prophets, highly idealized & with strong belief in their politics. Monarchists regard theirs like Gollum, a shrivel little creature & only a companion. ... You have to make people believe again. Refurbish them with a notion of pre-eminence w/ monarchy, a sense of Majesty. Constitutional monarchists are competing with politicians who'll offer the people a lot more & who'll make them in awe of their leadership, making people monarchists for them & no king.

>>7641 I have always thought that absolute monarchy is not necessarily the best option. I would rather see a more decentralized monarchy with a return to a feudal structure where a noble class has responsibility for the common people under them. For example, in my county, there would be a count whose responsibility would be to maintain the county and protect the serfs (citizens) who live in it. Instead of a governor of the state, there would be a duke, and if the duke began to implicate policies detrimental to the citizens, this would be detrimental to his counts under him. They could either vote the Duke out, take up arms against the Duke, or bring the grievance to the King to settle the matter. For a monarch, it would be the same thing. Dukes and other higher nobility would keep an immoral and dangerous monarch in check. While superior to the rank below, each rank has a vested interest in the lower rank. Counts need the serfs to be happy and prosper because their stability and wealth depend upon the serfs. A prosperous serf leads to prosperous count and on up. A dangerous and immoral noble upsets this balance and leads to a check in his power, either from below or above. It is a self-healing structure.

>>7861 >I have always thought that absolute monarchy is not necessarily the best option. I will bring criticism from an absolutist perspective. This structure lacks monarchical pre-eminence. It is one thing to be a superior any one, but the quality of monarchical pre-eminence is greater than this: because the question poses, greater than any one, but less than altogether. A pre-eminent monarchy is not simply greater than any one, but less than altogether: a pre-eminent monarchy is great in comparison to the whole state. My opinion is as soon as we conceit the idea of killing a monarch (without even evidence of any injustice) it is sufficient proof we aren't in a state of awe or under the sway of any pre-eminence; no Christian would dare think disobedience or the capacity to cruxify & judge Christ, since Christ has pre-eminence over Christians... it is the same for monarchy or honestly any other leader. Communists never think to even overthrow Lenin or pre-conceive malevolent intent there. >I would rather see a more decentralized monarchy To quote Homer, ill-fares the state where many kings rule; let there be one ruler, one king. The ideal of monarchy in the grand scheme of political governance benefits from a unitary conception of politics. Otherwise, we revert to Aristotle's constitution, where monarchical rule over the political state itself is taboo & reserved in principle for the economical estate. This is counter-intuitive to the idea of monarchical rule in so many ways. >Dukes and other higher nobility would keep an immoral and dangerous monarch in check. We merely trade the virtues & faults of one system (monarchy) for the virtues & faults of another (oligarchy): it might put in check an individual, but there is still imperfections now not with an individual but with a group. Which might suffice to say, Aristotle's water argument, that a group is less difficult to corrupt than a droplet of water. I also consider Bodin's counterpoint, that a group can also dissolve virtue like salt in a lake and bring it down to mediocrity or problems of another kind (factionalism)... This might be a virtue if your conception of politics is pluralistic, but my opinion is a unitary view of politics works better with monarchy like a well suited glove fit for royal rule. Pluralistic idea of politics contradicts monarchy (which is, by definition, unitary & one-ruler)... it prefers monarchy as a building block among many other monarchs (one among equals), but this is to gradually return to the state Homer lamented about in the Illiad where many petty kings rule.

If you make a system where the folly of one person is no worry, that system likely ceases to be a Monarchy. People say, that if a Monarch dies -- disarray follows; but that is how you know it is a true monarchy.

rape!

>>7853 Commiecat poster?!

>>3833 kek, based.

>>3833 I would pay to see royal wrestling, tbh.

>>3833 Fucking rigged

I was here for Halloween 2024! Does this make me more likely to receive a royal land grant? Also, Grace looks very nice in Egyptian attire.

Grace is cute